The Supreme Court will hear on April 5 a batch of PILs challenging the validity of sure provisions of a 1991 law that prohibits the submitting of a lawsuit to reclaim a spot of worship or search a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Supreme Court will hear on April 5 a batch of PILs challenging the validity of sure provisions of a 1991 law that prohibits the submitting of a lawsuit to reclaim a spot of worship or search a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala on Monday took be aware of submissions of lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, one of the PIL petitioners, that the issues, that are listed for listening to on April 5 within the trigger listing, be not deleted from the listing of enterprise on that day.
“It will not be deleted on that day,” the bench stated.
On January 9, the highest court docket had requested the central authorities to file its reply to the PILs towards some provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and had granted it time until the tip of February to submit its response.
The prime court docket has listed for listening to on April 5 as many as six petitions, together with one filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, towards the provisions of the law.
On November 14 final 12 months, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, showing for the Centre, had stated a complete affidavit shall be filed by the federal government coping with varied sides of the case and sought some extra time to be certain that the affidavit is filed after due deliberation at varied ranges of the federal government.
“On the request so made, we direct that the counter affidavit be filed on or before 12 December 2022. A copy of the counter affidavit shall be circulated to the counsel for the petitioners and intervenors in all the companion matters. List the petitions on 9 January 2023,” the bench had ordered on the final date of listening to.
The prime court docket was listening to the pleas, together with the one filed by Mr. Upadhyay, who has prayed that sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, be put aside on grounds, together with that these provisions take away the proper of judicial treatment to reclaim a spot of worship of any individual or a religious group.
While listening to the matter on September 9 final 12 months, the apex court docket had stated the pleas challenging the validity of sure provisions of the 1991 law may be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication and requested the Centre to file a reply.
While Mr. Swamy needed the apex court docket to “read down” sure provisions to allow Hindus to stake declare over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, Mr. Upadhyay claimed your entire statute was unconstitutional and no query of studying down arises.
The doctrine of studying down a law is mostly used to save a statute from being struck down on account of its unconstitutionality.
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by advocate Ejaz Maqbool, had referred to the five-judge Constitution bench judgment within the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case and stated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, has been referred to there and it can’t be put aside now.
The prime court docket had on March 12 final 12 months sought the Centre’s response to the plea filed by Mr. Upadhyay challenging the validity of sure provisions of the law which offers for sustaining the established order on the possession and character of religious places as on August 15, 1947.
The petition alleged that the 1991 law creates an “arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date” of August 15, 1947, for sustaining the character of the places of worship or pilgrimage towards encroachment performed by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers”.
The 1991 law prohibits conversion of anywhere of worship and to present for the upkeep of the religious character of anywhere of worship because it existed on August 15, 1947, and for issues related therewith or incidental thereto.
The law had made just one exception— on the dispute pertaining to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
